Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40424579›Full record

ArticleJMIR diabetes2025

Understanding Device Integrations Within Diabetes Apps: Mixed Methods Analysis of App Features and User Reviews.

Jessica Turner, Katarzyna Stawarz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR diabetes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jessica Turner *University of Waikato, 101 Durham Street, Tauranga, 3110, New Zealand, 64 7 262 0585.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7623-882X
Katarzyna Stawarz *Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9021-0615

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Diabetes management involves a large degree of data collection and self-care in order to accurately administer insulin. Several mobile apps are available that allow people to track and record various factors that influence their blood sugar levels. Existing diabetes apps offer features that enable integrations with various devices that streamline diabetes management, such as continuous glucose monitors, insulin pumps, or regular activity trackers. While this reduces the tracking burden on the users, the research highlighted several issues with diabetes apps, including issues with reliability and trustworthiness. As pumps and continuous glucose monitors are safety-critical systems-where issues can result in serious harm or fatalities-it is important to understand what issues and vulnerabilities could be introduced by relying on popular diabetes apps as an interface for interacting with such devices. Objective: As there is a lack of research examining in detail the integrations and potential suitability of apps as part of a wider self-management ecosystem, our goal was 2-fold. First, we aimed to understand the current landscape of device integrations within diabetes apps and how well they meet users' needs. Second, we identified the key issues users of the most popular apps face currently and what features are the source of these issues. Methods: Through searches in Android and iPhone app stores, we systematically identified 21 diabetes apps that offer integrations. We conducted a detailed analysis of 602 user reviews. For each review, we recorded its sentiment, features and issues, and additional contextual information provided by the review writers. We used descriptive statistics to analyze the features and issues. We also analyzed the reviews thematically to identify additional trends related to the context of use and the consequences of issues reported by the users. Results: The reviews focused on key features that users found the most important, including device integrations (n=259, 43%), tracking (n=194, 32.2%), data logging (n=86, 14.3%), and notifications (n=70, 11.6%). We found that 327 (54.3%) of the reviews were negative versus 187 (31.1%) positive and 88 (14.6%) neutral or mixed, and the majority of reviews (n=378, 62.8%) mentioned issues. The biggest issues related to device integrations included inability to connect with external devices (n=95, 25.1%), inability to store, manage, or access data (n=49, 22%), unreliable notifications and alerts (n=35, 9.2%), issues caused by or related to software updates (n=31, 8.5%), hardware issues (n=24, 6.4%), and issues with accessing the app, related services, or associated hardware (n=12, 3.2%). Conclusions: Apps for diabetes management are a useful part of self-care only if they are reliable and trustworthy, reduce burden, and increase health benefits. Our results provide a useful overview of desired features for diabetes apps alongside key issues for existing integrations and highlight the future challenges for artificial pancreas system development.

Indexed as

diabetes mellitushealth appsmHealthmobile appsmobile healthself-managementuser experience

Identifiers

PMID40424579
PMCPMC12133075

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.